2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the participation in the assistance.

“In office,” and resigned on December 20, 2019.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment, the same shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the following grounds, the sale and purchase of this case can be recognized as a repayment of substitute in relation to the defendant, and the defendant must comply with the plaintiff's request.

1) As seen earlier, the instant business agreement refers H and J as “a contractor concurrently performing construction works” and according to the overall contents of Articles 2 and 3 of the instant business agreement, D, etc. recognized the status of a business executor as a business executor, thereby granting H, etc. the authority to actually sell G buildings.

However, as seen earlier, H is not an obligation related to the instant construction, as seen earlier by itself.

of this section, the Corporation has been authorized to sell this section.

There is no ground to view that D et al. did not directly urge D et al. to pay any gold and any balance under the sales contract of this case, but D et al. knowingly accepted the fact that D et al. sold the building of this case to the Plaintiff with payment of substitutes.

It does not appear.

Rather, D can be seen that the fact that the J urged the Plaintiff to receive gold and balance from the Plaintiff several times from April 13, 2017 to May 25, 2017 is that the J did not talk with D about the circumstances that were sold by the Plaintiff as a substitute payment.

In principle, H’s transfer of ownership of the instant building to K as a substitute payment for the construction price to K is null and void as an act other than authority.

2) However, as seen earlier, the instant sales contract form was prepared.